I just ordered the above lens, to test it thoroughly. It got reviewed here, but as you can see from the results, it turned out to be a mixed bag on the long end.
The latest ColorFoto test showed nothing to rave about on the long end either plus some pretty heavy decentering defects, so now I have to see for myself.
It fortunately has IS, and I'm excited to test it against the Tamron 200-500mm without IS, as the big question is: how high is the rate of bad photos on a non-IS long tele (and I'm only taking a mono-pod for stabilization)

Here are the main facts from the catalog:
Size: 91x171mm = almost the shortest tele-zoom this long Weight: 1340g = lighter than Sigma OS 80-400 Best in class with regard to size/weight is the Tokina AT-XD 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 at 79x136.5mm, 1020g though without IS Optics: 17 elements in 11 groups inc. 3 ED elements Closest focus distance/max.magnification: 2.3m @ 400mm / 1:4.8 Filter-thread: 77mm = standard (very good) Only first gen. VR (please, Nikon, update!) No AF-S (another reason,why Nikon should upgrade this lens), so no use for D40/x-owners , manual switch from AF to manual-focus Tripod collar (to be tested, heard bad things about it) Ah, and it covers FF-sensors

Hey Thomas, that's great news on your new lens and I look forward to hearing what you think about it. I know you've read varying reports, but I can tell you I have seen many pro Nikon users with this lens...

My first impressions from this lens are:
- HUGE package - Ooooh, I love stabilization after a few tries, got a 1/8sec sharp handhold @ 400mm - But, it seems that the lens too often thinks you're panning: vertical movements are much better compensated for by the VR/IS-system than horizontal movements (it was already clear, that Nikon should upgrade the VR in this lens...)
- AF is slooow, but to the point - tripod collar is detachable - no dof markings - The zoom-ring works tight and is a little small for my liking

First the inevitable tree-shot, a fir similar to the Tamron 200-500mm-test. Using a tripod to eliminate any shake. I show you the 400mm/f8 shot in toto and then some centre-crops from that shot and at other apertures and focal lengths at 100%.

The following 100%-crops are at 200mm/f8, 80mm/f8 and at 400mm again but at f5.6, the latter being clearly the softest.
You can easily compare these crops to the Tamron-test and see that the Nikon is clearly superior (remember the Tamron was tested at f11!).

I also did some shots of the famous Siemens-star and another one that is comparable across all the tested tele-lenses.

I'll present here a 400mm/f5.6-shot at close distance (magnification almost 1:10) plus 100% crops from different positions. As I found out afterwards, my position was not perfectly perpendicular to the test-sheet (I was a little to the left). So don't blame the lens for slight differences between left and right!
The crops shows a 9mm grey disk in the middle and in the left upper-corner (second row #1) and a little worse on the lower right corner (second row #2) (at least on my 21" 1600x1200 monitor). These grey disks are comparable across my lens-tests and the diameter is directly proportional to the resolution of the lens. The last 100% crop is a detail from the left middle.

So even at near close-up distance the lens has is a decent performer. B.t.w.: maximum magnification was measured at 1:4.7 @ 2.3m.

And a 400/f8-shot from far away plus 100% crop (near centre).

For your delectation I also tested the VR-quality thoroughly free-standing, whitout leaning on/at anything.
First at 400mm/f16 at 1/60sec:

Then 2x with f13 and 1/90sec. I'll just show you the 100% crop
As you can see, the first 1/90 shot was even worse than the first 1/60 shot, and even the second 1/90 shot was not optimal. So the ancient VR on this lens does it's job, but even at "only" 4x the shutter-speed it does not necessarily give you sharp shots. I would have expected better: My position was secure from wind, and I was not panting from a job at the beach! So I was disappointed. But to make one thing pretty clear: The IQ with this VR is miles ahead of no IS at all (like with the Tamron and the Tokina).
Following are three other shots taken at 400mm/f11 1/90sec. On the last-one you can also see some of the color-fringing this lens had:

Conclusion:Would I buy this lens? Weeeeell, it's optically the best long tele-zoom I've tested and it has VR/IS which is absolutely necessary if you want a decent hit-rate from your hand-held long-range shots.
But for that price, I felt a little let down by the antiquated VR and AF, plus the bulk of this lens is nothing that you easily carry around on a longer trip. So this lens also went back and my Tamron 500mm mirror-lens will be the ultra-long of choice, until Nikon comes up with a renovated version of this lens.

But certainly you can make sharp, vividly colored shots with this lens free-hand (this time at 400mm/f5.6 1/750sec):

But I will maybe buy the nikon 80-400 VR and I saw you did a test of this lens.Are you satisfied of the lens? Is it sharp? Buildquality?

I want someting better in scharpness then my sigma 150-500 os hsm.

Thx

Hi there,

I have not yet tested the Sigma 150-500 OS but only the Sigma 120-400 OS. But from the optical construction I fear that the problems with the 120-400 also translate to the same problems with the 150-500mm. If this is so I'd prefer the Nikon 80-400 VR over both lenses. Unfortunately the Nikkor is an almost 10 years old design, lacking AF-S and VRII. So world and dog is waiting for Nikon to release a successor to this lens.

So you have two options: just wait for the new release or hope the prices for the current 80-400 VR will come down a bit.

Thx for the reply on my question. And I have the posibility to buy a nikon 80-400 VR For 750 euro and the lens is in belgium stil 1300 euro new. So I think i'm going to buy it, The AF-S, VRII and Nano should be a nice upgrade.

The sigma 150-500 was soft, you have 100mm more but it's only scharp at F11. Even at 400mm you need to go to F11. And the colors are not so nice as my nikon 300mm f4 af-s.

Hello ducaudi, and welcome to the friendly Camera Labs forum!
750€ is a very good price for a Nikon 80-400 VR. I assume it's used so make sure it's in good condition. Enjoy your new lens and post some of your experiences here!

This is very interesting, Ive been looking for a descent tele for a long time now and Im currently considering the fixed 300mm f4 from nikon, I dont suppose you tried it out yet?

From what Ive seen of it it has great image quality, though its old and lacks VR, but what Im mostly after is good colors and contrast and IQ in general. The only other alternative I can think of is the nikon 70-200 2.8 but that is a bit too short, or the 80-400 but Im afraid it wont be as good when it comes to IQ. Any suggestions, Ive stopped concidering Sigma, since I tried a 18-50mm EX 2.8 that was horrible (made screeching noises when I focused).